Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting #52. February 16, :00 PM - 8:00 PM Progress Park Downey Ave, Paramount, CA MEETING SUMMARY

Transcription

1 Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting #52 February 16, :00 PM - 8:00 PM Progress Park Downey Ave, Paramount, CA INTRODUCTION On Thursday, February 16, 2017, the Corridor Advisory Committee met at Progress Park from 6:00 PM. 8:30 PM. Representatives from the project team in attendance included: Ernesto Chaves (Metro), Carlos Montez (Metro), Ayda Safaei (Metro), John Vassiliades (Caltrans), Kekoa Anderson (GCCOG), Shannon Willits (AECOM), Julie Rush (AECOM), Dave Levinsohn (AECOM), Rob McCann (LSA), Esmeralda García (MIG), and Paola Bassignana (MIG). CAC members in attendance were: Pablo Camacho, Teamsters Local 848 Louie Diaz, City of Carson LAC Joan Greenwood, City of Long Beach District 7 Gary Hamrick, City of Long Beach District 8 Angelo Logan, East Yards Communities for Environmental Justice Dilia Ortega, Alternate for Robert Cabrales, Communities for a Better Environment INTRODUCTIONS AND AGENDA OVERVIEW Esmeralda García of MIG facilitated the meeting and opened with a round of self-introductions and an overview of the agenda. PREVIOUS MEETING Ms. Garcia provided a recap of the previous CAC meeting summary that was held on January 19, At that meeting, Shannon Willits (AECOM) presented a summary of the water quality analyses completed and underway for the RDEIR/SDEIS. His presentation also included information on landscaping and storm water treatment options in consideration for the I-710 Corridor Project. Mr. Willits reviewed the water quality-related objectives of Metro Board Motion Ernesto Chaves (Metro) provided a brief update on the Early Action Sound Wall Project. and Ayda Safaer (Metro) introduced the Motion 22.1 I-710 Bike Path project. Corridor Advisory Committee February 16, 2016 Page 1 of 6

2 A committee member suggested the Metro bike effort should coordinate closely with the Lower Los Angeles River Working Group. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments. BOARD MOTION 22.1 OVERVIEW OF WORK TO DATE Transit Julie Rush (AECOM) provided an overview of Motion 22.1 Items C and D, which discuss implementing high frequency express bus service and adding transit service (bus and light rail) within the I-710 corridor study area, respectively. The newly proposed high frequency express bus routes are (currently conceptual and under study): 51X: a north/south route beginning at Cal State Long Beach that merges onto I-710 north of the Long Beach Airport, terminating at Cal State Los Angeles 52X: a north/south route beginning at the Lakewood City Mall that merges onto I-710 in Paramount, terminating at Cal State Los Angeles 7XX: a north/south line beginning at Cal State Long Beach, running parallel to I-710, terminating at Cal State Los Angeles All routes make strategic connections with east/west bus and light rail service for regional connections, connections to major points of interest, and job centers. In addition to adding these bus routes, the analysis included increased Blue and Green Line trains with 5-6 minute peak period headways and a 25 percent increase in local bus service. These transit service increases were used to assess reduction in daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the I-710 Study Area as a result of increasing transit service under each alternative. Questions from the committee included: What does the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis include? o VMT analysis includes an aggregate of all trips, inclusive of segments of trips, that occur within the Project Study area The proposed new express routes only include north/south bus routes. Would adding east/west options improve service or ridership? o Motion 22.1 specifies north/ south routes along the I-710 corridor. The transit service frequency improvements being proposed on east/west routes as a component of the build alternatives enhance service and access to the proposed routes Page 2 of 5

3 TECHNICAL STUDIES KEY FINDINGS Traffic Ms. Rush provided an update on the results of traffic studies and findings to date. She reviewed current traffic volumes (total, auto, and truck) on I-710 in comparison to projected 2035 traffic volumes under the year 2035 No Build alternative and for the two build alternatives 5C, and 7. Ms. Rush presented the I-710 level of service (LOS) improvements, changes in vehicle miles traveled, changes in vehicle hours of delay, and levels of congestion at intersections surrounding I-710 under each of the three alternatives. The presentation also covered proposed traffic mitigation measures to address unavoidable traffic impacts resulting from the I-710 Corridor Project. These mitigation measures include: traffic signals, access management, signal phasing/coordination, restriping/ changing lane configurations, and adding turning lanes, among other options. The I-710 Corridor Project includes a Congestion Relief Program as a programmatic element. This program will offer funding opportunities for cities to reduce congestion at intersections within the I-710 Project Study Area that perform at a Level of Service (LOS) of E or F in the 2035 No Build condition. The traffic studies conducted for the I-710 Corridor Project also include recommended improvements for impacted intersections. Committee members raised the following questions about the information presented: What models were used in analyzing traffic? Are there new/different models being discussed in the engineering community? o The modeling used for the I-710 Corridor Project EIR/EIS includes a variety of tools and state of the art practice/standard methodology for conducting these analysis: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) methodology applied in the I-710 RDEIR/SDEIS aligns with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) methodology Caltrans/Federal Highway Administration methodology applied for freeway Level of Service (LOS) and intersection LOS is consistent with current (2010) version of the Highway Capacity Manual Is the Congestion Relief Program an existing program? When would funding become available? o It is a programmatic element included under both build alternatives for the I- 710 Corridor Project, it is not an existing program o Funding level has not yet been determined Are the mix master in Commerce and Wardlow/ Blue Line Station in Long Beach intersections included in the analysis for impacted intersections? o A large number of intersections are under analysis. The project team will follow up confirm that these are included Alternative 5C provides the most improvement in traffic operations on I-710, while Alternative 7 has a broader geographic impact in that it improves traffic operations on the study area roadway network (arterials, etc.), despite I-710 traffic operations not performing as well as Alternative 5C; something to consider in choosing a preferred alternative Page 3 of 5

4 It appears that both Alternative 5C and Alternative 7 can produce a reduction in study area vehicle hours of delay Land development projects being proposed within the project area could have an impact on traffic volumes at intersections and on arterials that should be considered as well o Long Beach pilot study underway, I-710 Corridor Project should consider the results of that pilot study Right of Way (ROW) Shannon Willits (AECOM) provided the committee with a presentation on the project right of way impacts. The presentation compared the right of way impacts for each of the three alternatives: No Build, Alternative 5C and Alternative 7. The ROW impacts at each location were compared to those evaluated for the alternatives in the 2012 Draft EIR/EIS. Mr. Willits also summarized the estimated overall impact to residential and business properties under each alternative, in comparison to the alternatives in the 2012 Draft EIR/EIS. Questions from the committee included: What factors enable redesign of certain interchanges to avoid impacts, while it is not possible for others? For example, why were the impacts to the senior apartments avoidable, while those to the Bell Shelter were not? o Major facts are the type of interchange in consideration and what kind can be accommodated in a given space o The conditions at Alondra where the design was reconfigured to avoid impacting the senior apartments are different than the conditions at the shelter, where complete avoidance was not possible Are the residential impacts presented in terms of land or residential units? o Residential impacts include both impact to acreage and number of units impacted. Units can be single and multi-family. A committee member requested the Project Team provide follow up information explaining the rationale for what makes an impact avoidable and unavoidable. PROJECT UPDATES Livability Initiative Kekoa Anderson (GCCOG) updated the committee on the status of the Livability Initiative. The update included developments on projects being led by the GCCOG and implementation efforts resulting from the Active Transportation Plan. Mr. Anderson also provided an overview of the Long Beach MUST urban runoff treatment facility currently in the planning phase. This water treatment facility would collect and treat water entering the Los Angeles River. The project affects a large area from SR-91 to the Port of Long Beach. Urban greening and wetlands restoration strategies are elements of this project. Questions from the community included: Which Motion 22.1 elements are included in the Livability Initiative? o The Livability Initiative includes elements that are not addressed in the I-710 Corridor Project EIR/EIS Page 4 of 5

5 Comments and ideas from the committee included: Communicate with Long Beach and other cities who are engaged in long-range planning efforts currently, as many issues overlap and the plans could inform one another o Long Beach General Plan Update o Proposed Long Beach development projects SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS Ms. García reviewed the follow up items that came forward during the meeting, which included: Send CAC members GCCOG Livability Initiative presentation Provide details associated to explain the rationale for what makes an impact avoidable and unavoidable in the avoidance analysis conducted as part of Motion 22.1 Confirm inclusion of the mix master and Wardlow /Blue Line intersections in intersection traffic analyses ADJOURNMENT In the interest of time, the scheduled presentation focused on proposed sound wall treatments was postponed to the March CAC meeting. Ms. García informed the group that the next meeting would be held on March 16, Ms. García thanked the group for attending and adjourned the meeting at 8:30 PM. Page 5 of 5